View Of Golden Gate

This is why we are disappointed when we sign (insert random lower league player here), if you see Ruddy as a realistic target, you won't be happy with whoever we end signing.

2 hours ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

You see its very sad that Gordan has passed away he was a great servent for the club and a good man but I think its abit much to name a stand after him. Such an honour should only be reserved to the likes of Royle Ritchie and Frizzell. A tribute yes but something perhaps abit smaller and more personal.

I agree, party because I'm not sure Gordon would be the type to want a stand named after him. I think a plaque on the chair he always used to sit on during home games, and renaming the press box after him would be a more fitting tribute, for someone who was larger than life but not an attention seeker.

I didn't know him very well, but every time we spoke he had me laughing. You couldn't help but respect and listen to him, he was without doubt one of the nicest people I have ever come across.

There isn't much that can be said that hasn't already, I just hope his family know how loved and respected he was within the club and out. Calling him Mr Oldham Athletic is probably about as apt as you can get, to his family, friends and those at the club too my deepest sympathy. Rarely does someone touch so many people, and make so many people smile. 

12 hours ago, markgaston said:

The only party which does not attend, debate and vote in Westminster are the Shinners because they refuse to swear an oath of allegiance.  

Fair enough, I thought I had heard Channel Four say none of the Northern Ireland parties were represented in Westminster. Which they argued effectively pushed May over the line, still this agreement with the DUP is frustrating. May's legacy could well be a botched election, and disregarding the Good Friday Agreement for personal gain.

Still people support her, the mind boggles.  

16 minutes ago, Stevie_J said:

It's a weird situation.  I would imagine there is a section of the Tory vote (how big, I have no idea) who are very put out at the idea of the party they voted for cosying up to the DUP - I suppose that's always likely to be the case, regardless of the party but, as has been well highlighted, the DUP have some pretty bloody extreme views.

 

However, I think the main concern should be whether this puts at risk 'peace' in Northern Ireland.  I would hate to think the UK could set itself back decades on that front, just so Theresa May can desperately cling to power.

This for me is being missed the most, their views on. well almost everything, is totally abhorrent. They will not influence the laws, though, as there is no way going backwards in gay and/or women rights would get through the House. 

This move does, however, break the Good Friday Agreement, how can anyone think this is ok? 

She did not need the DUP, the Irish parties usually sit out of Westminster proceedings, so their seats are null and void. This was done to stop calls for her resignation, but I'm sorry May is proving she is an even worse PM then I thought possible.

There were a fair few Tory voters on here, do they feel comfortable with this? 

Just to be clear that was not a question from a bitterness point of view, just wondering their opinion.

4 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I find it mind boggling but that's exactly what's happened. 

I'm not sure this is the case in most areas the turnout was higher, I think it is more a case of younger voters went for Labour. No doubt there will be some UKIP supporters who made that swap, but I am not sure it is on the whole accurate to say that is exactly what happened.

I may be wrong, I have missed confirmation that this is the case. If so, fair enough, working on very little sleep, and so many stories it is likely I have missed something. I just do not understand the logic of jumping from right wing to left wing in two years, unless it was purely for the NHS.

Speaking in general, this was an obvious mistake from May and her advisers. I do wonder how many people voted for Labour because it felt like a movement, it felt like we were a part of something. The Tories seemed cold and distant from the electorate, another General before the end of the year could well produce a similar result though, so what do people think the next steps are?

44 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

Yes

 

You should say nothing about what you will accept before negotiation starts, demand everything and negotiate down from there to reach a compromise.  

 

You certainly don't admit that you have to have a deal of any kind, that's starting with you weakest position already out there... stupid beyond belief.

I agree if this was a company/company trade deal, hell even a usual country trade agreement. The uncertainty of this is affecting future business plans, the worth of the pound, and general worries for the future. This cannot and should not be treated like a normal trade agreement, it is bigger than that. The current EU Nationals living here, the Brits living abroad deserve the guarantee they can stay where they are. Or they deserve the right to know they have to leave, to drag it out, causes unfair stress.

I accept that it is not all down to May, the EU have let down their people too. The problem is no-one has been in the situation before, and no-one truly knows for sure how to handle it. The same can be said for the 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' if this was a business transaction I'd agree. If it was a normal trade agreement I'd agree, and in some circumstances and potential deals I'd agree here too. It is a buzz phrase though, it doesn't give us any indication what she considers a bad deal. 

This is one of the biggest issue this country will face in my lifetime, it is of huge national interest and importance. I just don't like how it is being treated like a business transactions, EU nationals and ex-pats are being treated as a commodity or as pawns as part of a larger game. May is going in 'Billy Big Bollocks' because she wants to appear strong to an electorate she did not need to win over for another three years, she could have been way more diplomatic. The EU did not come at us, we voted to leave, they did not renege on their agreement or break contracts. We decided to end the partnership, we are now acting like the jilted one. 

Brexit is done to death and we all agree we are leaving, I don't like it, I don't agree with it, I think the referendum was flawed and set up poor parameters for such a big change. The thing that worries me the most about how the Tories are dealing with it, is there does not seem to be an obvious plan. They have not said how they expect to grow after it, other than buzzwords and phrases. They say have nine main aims, but if they have publicised them they have not made a big deal of them.

They just seem to want to fight on everything and not concede a single thing, in case they come across as weak. I think Britain can be ok, eventually, I worry my generation who are yet to make the money for serious savings and purchase their own house, in the most part will suffer most. I think my children and their children will have a better time, but can anyone seriously say they find May and her team to be handling it correctly so far?

Here's the thing as far as I'm aware you only get a free ticket if you are in the medium to higher bracket in regards to benefits, now I happen to know that many need just in case. And it is not up for the club to police who gets one and why, they are not even allowed to ask. As for selling them, that is an issue, but not one that can be policed. I'm sure the club would stop it if it could, but sometimes the cost to implement something is an issue.

As for fairness, I'm sure those with a disability would argue that it is not fair they have a disability in the first place. I think a free ticket for their carer is something I can stomach, in terms of those abusing the system, well people abuse the benefit system. In all honesty if the government cannot catch out someone cheating their system, how do you expect Oldham to? 

4 hours ago, OldHallam said:

Not arguing about the principle she looks very ill and whilst think she is obnoxious as a politician also a human. But someone had an email convo yesterday and looks an excuse to take her out of firing line as she refers to her diabetes not being an issue. (twitter via guido) The prank email she thought was from Seamus Milne and clear in content as discussing availability re participation on election night. She has been hidden along with McDonnell and Watson hiding himself. Umuna has been reckless with his mental illness link to knife crime and fits what you say makes it harder for those that are suffering. 

I have seen the emails, my point is the accusations about her lying were before the emails were released. Also from what I have seen it does seem she was indeed ill, not as ill as they making out. I do not agree, and I am annoyed about it, but to make accusations before evidence is unfair.

I agree Umuna's comments do not help at all, there are many things that make it harder for people to come forward and seek help. 

41 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

That is very generous of you. What was her excuse in all the other interviews over the last 6 months?  She is inept.  I'm not angry by the way.  

Good to see you're going down the innocent until proven guilty route, you sound like the Trump supporters who accused Clinton of faking an illness. I am by no means saying a party is above faking an illness, but do you have any concrete proof this is a lie? Or will continue spouting accusations based on assumptions?

I am by no means her biggest fan, and would rather her not be in the party but to attack anyone and accuse them of faking is scandalous, offensive and a dangerous precedent. You realise this kind of attitude is one reason many people do not speak up and get the help when suffering mental illness, because of fears of not being believed or ridiculed.

I suggest you keep your unfounded accusations to yourself, and if she is ever proven to have faked an illness then take pride in the fact you guessed. Personally I hope she gets well soon, I may not like her as a politician but I'll take it as true until proven otherwise.

10 minutes ago, 24hoursfromtulsehill said:

 

No one wants to create heroes or martyrs or whatever. But if you can get some results and the only price is hurt feelings and isolated senses of victimisation (this depends on keeping your activities quiet), I still favour a round-up. 

 

I agree about online material. I'm not the first to praise the police for their brainpower, especially having had dealings with PC Knobhead at away games. But even they're are intelligent enough to calibrate a shakedown based on whether someone is a journalist, an interested citizen or a potential or actual maniac. 

 

It sort of doesn't matter as long as you get the message across (quietly, meaning no political noise) that loose talk, including sarcasm, generates anything from inconvenience to criminal convictions.

 

Different situation and times, but the French dealt with the Algerian anti-colonialists in that way. The Algerians were massively organised, on a pyramid basis, in that every member of the group knew only three others (the one who recruited them and the two they recruited). There are obvious differences. For a start, the French used one or two interview techniques that are out of fashion nowadays. Another thing is it was an actual network with an actual hierarchy, rather than a scattered-in-the-wind internet community. Most of the information these days is on people's computers, so you don't really have to hang from the ceiling or tickle the soles of their feet with rubber truncheons to get information out of them. There weren't many joiners after the clampdown.

I am not against a round up, I personally find myself torn on this issue. I am quite openly liberal, but find myself wondering whether a harder approach is what is need now. This is a danger we have never really seen before, and have yet to truly understand.

My issue is with a blanket ban and a sentence for looking at the material, my reasons are outlined above, no need to bore anyone all over again with it. I just find ripping human rights laws up to be a slippery slope, and as my trust for this government is at an all time low, I am not sure that is the answer. Right now I prefer the idea of at least pretending we are at least willing to listen to them, before going in for the kill (metaphorically speaking), but I am not an expert and if a counter terrorism expert tells me that is the wrong approach I will be happy to let them do what they need to. As long as experts from all different viewpoints go through all the options, I just feel uncomfortable with many of the options banded about.

2 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I'd argue more staunch Tory's have it for the right reasons though, i.e. it's in their own interests. 

 

Masses of people in Oldham will, eg, have lapped up Labours spinning of the proposed changes to Social Care funding and vote to do themselves out of the full value of their parents terraced house preferring to just be able to inherit the last £25k.

Not to mention, and more importantly, they'll be voting for the rising cost of living that will come with Labours tax increases and hit them & their families much harder than wealthier people in wealthier areas. 

 

But, they've "always voted Labour" and that's what's most important. 

Maybe they believe in the policies?

Nope, sorry those voting Labour aren't intelligent enough to have looked into that. I personally believe Labour policies are better and costed (backed up many economy experts, scholars, consultants, professors) but you obviously disagree, which is totally fine. How about you stop with the superior attitude? 

4 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

Where have I done that? 

In your original post regarding the issue, one quick line on what should be done. This isn't just you, it is everyone, myself included. We throw out suggestions like we are talking about what formation Oldham should be playing, and if we are honest about we don't a clue what we are talking about. We are just self important dicks on a forum, thinking we know better than each other. If I took out of context what I felt was a rather flippant answer to a huge problem then my apologies, but you would not be the first or last to act like this was an easy fix while typing on a keyboard looking a computer screen. 

1 minute ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I was talking about online material really.  

 

It should result in very few people being locked up because very few people will look at this stuff if they know they'll be locked up.

 

This would result in far fewer people, if any, following this particular route to radicalisation. 

 

Factor in the fact that internet providers will be on board with shutting it all down anyway and it's highly unlikely any of the extremes that you're going off on tangents with would ever become reality.

 

   

 

 

Except it has happened with child porn, rare, but it has happened. 

Also correct me if I'm wrong but has pedophilia any less of an issue now? That is banned, and people prosecuted on a regular basis, but we still have a major issue and websites still open and spreading it.

This problem would still remain, there is proof in it in our current lives now. Hell support for ISIS and other similar organisations are banned, yet people still do it and are wildly unpunished/known. If you really think internet suppliers can shut down websites quicker than they can be opened, once again look at the issue we have child porn. 

There is no easy answer, stop pretending there is. It is a cancer and disease, a blanket ban like this will not even slow it down. That goes for everything like this, you need to battle the cause not the symptoms. We need experts devising plans not politicians looking for votes, or those who shout loudest on the internet (I include myself in that). 

25 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

I think we've been taking a few out when they're murdering & raping overseas for a while now and I'd hope that'll be stepped up. 

 

A few years of being banged up for so much as looking at Jihadist material will cut a lot of this off at its roots. It won't stop it altogether but it's one of several strategies that must surely be tried. 

 

Wait, what? So lets say a preacher of any faith notices that one of their 'flock' has started to say the odd extremist thing, they report them to the police but know nothing will be done as they are not a threat. Instead they decide to look at the kind of thing this radicalised individual is looking at, in order to get a better understanding, and combat this person's views. You know in the same way people look at alternative view points so they can learn and understand each better, do you lock them up, just in case?

Or the investigative journalist?

The off duty police officer?

The teacher worried about a student? Father or mother worried about their child? Someone shown it without knowing what it is?

Also what counts, just the stuff encouraging to kill? Or the publications calling for Muslim rule? How about stuff that questions the government? Once a rule like that comes in, it becomes very easy to stretch to include other things to. We already have a current government that love a good cover up, see the amount of Freedom of Information Requests rejected, the intended legislation to regulate the press, the intended law that would allow the government to read our email and texts, the cover up on the report of funding towards Terrorist organisations.

You would give them power to lock up people who want to help battle extremists? Yes you will catch out many who are fully paid up members of ISIS and others, but what about those caught in the legal crossfire? What about Nationalist extremism will that be included too, or is only Muslim organisations. 

What would be a better idea is stop giving these people the celebrity status they crave, make it illegal to watch them will only encourage others to go out and find it. Giving them a cult status, how about we stop publishing their name, and pictures of them everywhere? We make them heroes, that is what they want. If you have any doubts of this watch the documentary Jihadi Next Door, see the looks on their faces when people ask for photos. 

A law like this does not combat it, it makes them outlaws fighting a system that intends to crush their freedom of speech and Islam. And also potentially sees young people trying to find themselves drawn to it already, thrown in a cell and forever known as a terrorist. 

I do not know what the answer is, but look throughout modern history banning things only serves to create intrigue and helps to increase an audience. That is all this law would do, it make them cult icons, make them the faces and voices for Islamic Free Speech, not the hatemongers they are. 

8 minutes ago, Fruitygoo said:

 

Corp Tax wil see people move away from the UK at a time we need yo convince people to stay through Brexit. Jobs will be lost and Corbyn entire spending change depends on what he can gain extra from corp tax. Increased borrowing and defecit meaning more debt. 

Why? It will be less then most of the other countries, and are you saying that businesses won't need the business of British people? Have businesses fled other countries when they have raised corporation tax? Even Trump led USA have a tax of 35%, so what evidence is there that people will move away?

Lets be clear here the only people at fault for these attacks are the ones carrying them out, and the ones radicalising them. If they could have been avoided is a question that needs to be asked, but as intelligent and informed as some of us are we cannot and should not attempt to answer them. For all her faults and there are many, more than any PM in my lifetime and I assume in many of our lifetimes, the blame is not with her.

What needs to happen now is we need to ask whether dealing arms with the Saudis should continue, if Trident is needed right now when the biggest threat is at home, if more police cuts really should be happening, and is there a plan to stop ISIS. I accept that we do not need to know the plan, but at least say there is and start moving on it.

All parties need to stop using fear and the deaths of the people they are sworn to serve and protect to score political points, stop accusing each other of being unpatriotic, weak and at fault, and work together regardless of the winner on Thursday to fix this. We are at war, stop bitching and start doing.

Now on to something that has really irked and quite frankly offended me, her comments that enough is enough. We saw France, Germany almost the entire middle east suffer loss of life and attacks while these cretins were allowed to continue preaching their hate and bile. We allowed freaks like the EDL and Britain's First spread even more lies and hate too, we allowed all this hateful fools fill our children and vulnerable peoples' ears with hate, we allowed people on both sides to be radicalised. 

Then Westminster was attacked, no change, then Manchester, no change, now enough is enough. Is that what it takes Mrs May? 3 attacks, multiple deaths of innocent men, women and children before you actually seemingly do something. Say what you like about JC, many do, and to be fair I totally understand the difference of opinions on this. I lean towards his way of thinking, in many cases, I do find myself torn on this, but May was in charge. She has had seven years to do something, and it takes all this before she decides its time.

She should not be seeking reelection, she is not fit. I'm not saying JC is the answer, I honestly don't know. I'm willing to give him a chance, but totally understand why others aren't. I do know she is not the answer, she is an incompetent disgrace. 

1 hour ago, kowenicki said:

 

Who is asking you to brag.  I'm just wondering what shapes your polarised and aggressive view.  I find it interesting.

I disagree with how our country is being run, I happen to like Labour's policies. I like the idea of trying to change the way wealth is distributed, I happen to want our NHS to stay ours and not be sold off, I happen to appreciate what our public services do and want them to run correctly, I happen to like children being educated, I happen to hate the idea of Boris meeting anyone important ever, I happen to support Labour for this election.

I personally find it interesting that someone as successful as yourself, that you pay more in tax that I will in my lifetime has the time to spend all day on here, I'm not going to ask you about it because that is your business. I think the reasons for me supporting Labour are made very clear in previous posts, however, you only wish to debate things that suit your own view. If someone asks you a question you don't like you avoid it, you post a table there is no doubt if genuine is damning on the previous Labour government. 

They were not this Labour, they were more Conservative than this current Labour, so comparing the two is misleading. As you put earlier there is no point discussing anything with anyone like me, which is usually code for "I do not know how to win this debate, so I will make you the problem, not my inability to convince you."   

3 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

No point in discussing anything with anyone like you. You'd vote for a slug if it had a red rosette on it.   I'm still curious to know peoples backgrounds if they are prepared to share... which part of the public sector do you work for? 

 

 

Never worked in the public sector, worked in a variety of industries. I do not feel the need to brag about my earnings, or achievements because and no disrespect to anyone here but I do not need approval and applause from an online community. 

10 minutes ago, HarryBosch said:

 

Could anybody produce any single stat that you wouldn't spin in a similar fashion?

 

 

Isn't this largely the issue? Aren't all statistics open to spinning? Doesn't this open up to a wider issue of why people do not vote, as there are so few facts, and the facts that are there are ignored unless they suit the agenda. 

Just now, HarryBosch said:

 

Your glorious leader wants to increase it which, put simplistically, might well result in the reverse happening. Which will mean he then has to go against his pledge not to fuck over low earners....

Whereas yours openly fucks over/dislikes over low earners, disabled, elderly, unemployed, foxes, elephants, police officers, doctors, nurses, anyone who wishes to ask her a question, her own colleagues, female prisoners, human right activists, environmentalists, those who oppose the selling of arms to terrorists, students, those who need social care, the self employed, the homeless, the sick, the destitute, the NHS, live debates (in fact any debates), following Parliamentary procedure, expenses 

What she protects/likes: high earners, big corporations, Phillip Hammond, fox hunters, poachers, her husband (because he takes the bins out like a man), her husband's bank account, power suits, despots, Trump, Saudi Arabia, Assad, Rupert Murdoch, the Daily Mail, Maggie Thatcher, her husband's bank account (again), her job, her old job, making cuts, slogans, her own voice, her own face.

Anything I miss?

29 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

So, back on topic.

 

question for potential labour voters.  

 

Views on Diane Abbott, (Lady) Emily Thornberry  and John McDonnell.  

 

can you really stomach them? Seriously? 

 

I was going to pro and con the people you mentioned, but then I decided to handle that question in the manner our dear Supreme Leader would:

"It is clear to me that they are indeed members of the shadow cabinet, and at this time we have to say we are all in this together. I would also like to remind everyone they should look at the other party, (scoff) and ask if you want them to handle the very important Brexit negotiations. They begin eleven days after the election, an election that is clear to me was designed to increase power from the opposite party. I consider any questions on this subject to be nothing more than people trying to damage the future of this nation, strong and stable, strong and stable, strong and stable.........."   

6 hours ago, kowenicki said:

 

Not that simple pal. I do earn more than that, do have a limited company and do pay more tax than that. Admittedly when I sold my partnership to my ltd company I was able to reduce tax significantly for some time. But that can't last forever and tax is inevitable.  I also paid a shit load of tax, more than many, probably you, will ever pay in their lifetimes. I'm not complaining, but it is a fact..... 'but people who earn over 100k don't pay hardly any tax!!!??' Bullshit. Utter bullshit. What do you do? Earn? Or is it a secret? Why the chip on your shoulder? 

My liege,

you should have said you pay more tax than any of ever will, your opinion is now worth more. When Tories ask "why does no-one like us?" I present Exhibit A. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/30/disabled-readers-austerity-disability-cuts Someone read this and tell me the cuts are for the best, and explain how. Don't say this is just three extreme cases, because I know of people are suffering because of cuts. 

Has May and/or her friends and family suffered? Have Tory benefactors suffered? Tell me how this is the society you not only want to live in, but will actively pursue? Tell me it is not time for a change, this government is broken. No-one can tell me why the Tories are the correct choice, the main argument is that they are the best of a bad bunch. Labour are trying to be positive, trying to inspire and grow. The Tories are cutting more and more, what happens when we stop overspending? Do we magically have the ability to start spending more? Or do they stay at the same depressing rate? This government are not trying to grow, they are trying to survive election by election. Problem is that is leaving some just trying to survive day to day, ask May and her cohorts how she intends to help.

8 minutes ago, UsedtobeWozzer said:

The missing T May's insightful interview with the Plymouth Herald yesterday, which may explain why she was missing. Clue - she doesn't have one.

That can't be real, the answers are missing off that aren't they? I'm sorry but how can anyone feel that is acceptable? She acts like she is not to be held accountable, that she can just be wishy washy and no one will care. If she is the best this country can come up with, then we are in serious shit. I can't see her lasting the five years regardless of the result, she is already dazed, confused and as she so eloquently put 'alone and naked.'

She has cut herself off from her party, she was supposed to be the face, however, she has U-turned on that. Boris is getting louder and louder, her supporters quieter and quieter. The ones who are loyal she is hanging out to dry, her U turn on the Dementia Tax ruining the credibility of Hammond for a second time in six months. Amber Rudd left to suffer last night, as she tried to score petty points over Labour. She is a leader who is about personal wins, not wins for the country or even the party.